Search (190 results, page 1 of 10)

0.13027112 = product of:
  0.19540668 = sum of:
    0.16831109 = weight(_text_:citation in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16831109 = score(doc=1149,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.71789753 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.027095586 = product of:
      0.054191172 = sum of:
        0.054191172 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054191172 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

Theme

Citation indexing

0.080164835 = product of:
  0.2404945 = sum of:
    0.2404945 = weight(_text_:citation in 496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2404945 = score(doc=496,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        1.0257815 = fieldWeight in 496, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=496)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.072490856 = product of:
  0.10873628 = sum of:
    0.08502764 = weight(_text_:citation in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08502764 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.3626685 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.023708638 = product of:
      0.047417276 = sum of:
        0.047417276 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047417276 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Im Rahmen des klassischen Information Retrieval wurden verschiedene Verfahren für das Ranking sowie die Suche in einer homogenen strukturlosen Dokumentenmenge entwickelt. Die Erfolge der Suchmaschine Google haben gezeigt dass die Suche in einer zwar inhomogenen aber zusammenhängenden Dokumentenmenge wie dem Internet unter Berücksichtigung der Dokumentenverbindungen (Links) sehr effektiv sein kann. Unter den von der Suchmaschine Google realisierten Konzepten ist ein Verfahren zum Ranking von Suchergebnissen (PageRank), das in diesem Artikel kurz erklärt wird. Darüber hinaus wird auf die Konzepte eines Systems namens CiteSeer eingegangen, welches automatisch bibliographische Angaben indexiert (engl. Autonomous Citation Indexing, ACI). Letzteres erzeugt aus einer Menge von nicht vernetzten wissenschaftlichen Dokumenten eine zusammenhängende Dokumentenmenge und ermöglicht den Einsatz von Banking-Verfahren, die auf den von Google genutzten Verfahren basieren.

Date

20. 3.2005 16:23:22

0.07099848 = product of:
  0.10649772 = sum of:
    0.072880834 = weight(_text_:citation in 3991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072880834 = score(doc=3991,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.31085873 = fieldWeight in 3991, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3991)
    0.033616886 = product of:
      0.06723377 = sum of:
        0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 3991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06723377 = score(doc=3991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 3991, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Although researchers have theorized the critical importance of classification in the organization of information, the classification approach seems to have given way to the alphabetical subject approach in retrieval tools widely used in libraries, and research an how users utilize classification or classification-like arrangements in information seeking has been scant. To better understand whether searchers consider classificatory structures a viable alternative to information retrieval, this article reports an a study of how 24 library and information science students used Yahoo! directories, a popular search service resembling classification, in completing an assigned simple task. Several issues emerged from the students' reporting of their search process and a comparison between hierarchical navigation and keyword searching: citation order of facets, precision vs. recall, and other factors influencing searchers' successes and preferences. The latter included search expertise, knowledge of the discipline, and time required to complete the search. Without a definitive conclusion, we suggest a number of directoons for further research.

0.06427486 = product of:
  0.19282457 = sum of:
    0.19282457 = weight(_text_:citation in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19282457 = score(doc=3161,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.82245487 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper studies how varied damping factors in the PageRank algorithm influence the ranking of authors and proposes weighted PageRank algorithms. We selected the 108 most highly cited authors in the information retrieval (IR) area from the 1970s to 2008 to form the author co-citation network. We calculated the ranks of these 108 authors based on PageRank with the damping factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. In order to test the relationship between different measures, we compared PageRank and weighted PageRank results with the citation ranking, h-index, and centrality measures. We found that in our author co-citation network, citation rank is highly correlated with PageRank with different damping factors and also with different weighted PageRank algorithms; citation rank and PageRank are not significantly correlated with centrality measures; and h-index rank does not significantly correlate with centrality measures but does significantly correlate with other measures. The key factors that have impact on the PageRank of authors in the author co-citation network are being co-cited with important authors.

0.05432217 = product of:
  0.1629665 = sum of:
    0.1629665 = weight(_text_:citation in 5061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1629665 = score(doc=5061,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.69510126 = fieldWeight in 5061, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5061)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) provides a new method of locating potentially relevant articles on a given subject by identifying subsequent articles that cite a previously published article. An important feature of Google Scholar is that researchers can use it to trace interconnections among authors citing articles on the same topic and to determine the frequency with which others cite a specific article, as it has a "cited by" feature. This study begins with an overview of how to use Google Scholar for citation analysis and identifies advanced search techniques not well documented by Google Scholar. This study also compares the citation counts provided by Web of Science and Google Scholar for articles in the field of "Webometrics." It makes several suggestions for improving Google Scholar. Finally, it concludes that Google Scholar provides a free alternative or complement to other citation indexes.

Theme

Citation indexing

0.041952223 = product of:
  0.12585667 = sum of:
    0.12585667 = sum of:
      0.07843939 = weight(_text_:reports in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07843939 = score(doc=2186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.34833482 = fieldWeight in 2186, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2186)
      0.047417276 = weight(_text_:22 in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047417276 = score(doc=2186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2186, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2186)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Evaluates the performance of 8 major Internet search engines in answering 21 real reference questions and 5 made up subject questions. Reports on the retrieval and relevancy ranking abilities of the search engines. Concludes that the search engines did not produce good results for the reference questions unlike for the subject questions. The best engines are identified by type of questions, with Infoseek best for the subject questions, and OpenText best for refrence questions

Date

25.12.1998 19:22:51

0.040489353 = product of:
  0.12146806 = sum of:
    0.12146806 = weight(_text_:citation in 3298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12146806 = score(doc=3298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.5180979 = fieldWeight in 3298, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3298)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.03595905 = product of:
  0.10787715 = sum of:
    0.10787715 = sum of:
      0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06723377 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
      0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04064338 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Four focus groups were held with young Web users (10 to 13 years of age) to explore design criteria for Web portals. The focus group participants commented upon four existing portals designed with young users in mind: Ask Jeeves for Kids, KidsClick, Lycos Zone, and Yahooligans! This article reports their first impressions on using these portals, their likes and dislikes, and their suggestions for improvements. Design criteria for children's Web portals are elaborated based upon these comments under four headings: portal goals, visual design, information architecture, and personalization. An ideal portal should cater for both educational and entertainment needs, use attractive screen designs based especially on effective use of color, graphics, and animation, provide both keyword search facilities and browsable subject categories, and allow individual user personalization in areas such as color and graphics

Date

2. 6.2005 10:34:22

0.035064813 = product of:
  0.105194435 = sum of:
    0.105194435 = weight(_text_:citation in 2513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105194435 = score(doc=2513,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.44868594 = fieldWeight in 2513, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2513)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Journal citation measures are one of the most widely used bibliometric tools. The most well-known measure is the ISI Impact Factor, under the standard definition, the impact factor of journal j in a given year is the average number of citations received by papers published in the previous two years of journal j. However, the impact factor has its "intrinsic" limitations, it is a ranking measure based fundamentally on a pure counting of the in-degrees of nodes in the network, and its calculation does not take into account the "impact" or "prestige" of the journals in which the citations appear. Google's PageRank algorithm and Kleinberg's HITS method are webpage ranking algorithm, they compute the scores of webpages based on a combination of the number of hyperlinks that point to the page and the status of pages that the hyperlinks originate from, a page is important if it is pointed to by other important pages. We demonstrate how popular webpage algorithm PageRank and HITS can be used ranking journal, and we compared ISI impact factor, PageRank and HITS for journal ranking, and with PageRank and HITS compute respectively including self-citation and non self-citation, and discussed the merit and shortcomings and the scope of application that the various algorithms are used to rank journal.

0.034356356 = product of:
  0.10306907 = sum of:
    0.10306907 = weight(_text_:citation in 1284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10306907 = score(doc=1284,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.4396206 = fieldWeight in 1284, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1284)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article offers a comparative analysis of the personal profiling capabilities of the two most important free citation-based academic search engines, namely, Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) and Google Scholar Citations (GSC). Author profiles can be useful for evaluation purposes once the advantages and the shortcomings of these services are described and taken into consideration. In total, 771 personal profiles appearing in both the MAS and the GSC databases were analyzed. Results show that the GSC profiles include more documents and citations than those in MAS but with a strong bias toward the information and computing sciences, whereas the MAS profiles are disciplinarily better balanced. MAS shows technical problems such as a higher number of duplicated profiles and a lower updating rate than GSC. It is concluded that both services could be used for evaluation proposes only if they are applied along with other citation indices as a way to supplement that information.

0.032391485 = product of:
  0.09717445 = sum of:
    0.09717445 = weight(_text_:citation in 143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09717445 = score(doc=143,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.4144783 = fieldWeight in 143, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=143)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Citation searching on the Web

0.026469473 = product of:
  0.079408415 = sum of:
    0.079408415 = product of:
      0.23822524 = sum of:
        0.23822524 = weight(_text_:3a in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23822524 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4238747 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdelab.csd.auth.gr%2F~dimitris%2Fcourses%2Fir_spring06%2Fpage_rank_computing%2Fp527-li.pdf. Vgl. auch: http://www2002.org/CDROM/refereed/643/.

0.024293613 = product of:
  0.072880834 = sum of:
    0.072880834 = weight(_text_:citation in 1005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072880834 = score(doc=1005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.31085873 = fieldWeight in 1005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1005)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The dominant method currently used to improve the quality of Internet search systems is often called "digital democracy." Such an approach implies the utilization of the majority opinion of Internet users to determine the most relevant documents: for example, citation index usage for sorting of search results (google.com) or an enrichment of a query with terms that are asked frequently in relation with the query's theme. "Digital democracy" is an effective instrument in many cases, but it has an unavoidable shortcoming, which is a matter of principle: the average intellectual and cultural level of Internet users is very low- everyone knows what kind of information is dominant in Internet query statistics. Therefore, when one searches the Internet by means of "digital democracy" systems, one gets answers that reflect an underlying assumption that the user's mind potential is very low, and that his cultural interests are not demanding. Thus, it is more correct to use the term "digital ochlocracy" to refer to Internet search systems with "digital democracy." Based an the well-known mathematical mechanism of linear programming, we propose a method to solve the indicated problem.

0.024293613 = product of:
  0.072880834 = sum of:
    0.072880834 = weight(_text_:citation in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072880834 = score(doc=5131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.31085873 = fieldWeight in 5131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5131)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.022411257 = product of:
  0.06723377 = sum of:
    0.06723377 = product of:
      0.13446754 = sum of:
        0.13446754 = weight(_text_:reports in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13446754 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.59714544 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports on the "Search Engines and Beyond" conference held in Boston, Massachusetts, 1-2 April 1998. Notes topics covered and outlines some of the main contributions

0.020244677 = product of:
  0.06073403 = sum of:
    0.06073403 = weight(_text_:citation in 3458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06073403 = score(doc=3458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 3458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3458)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Continued development of the Internet requires the development of efficient, easy-to-use search engines. Ideally, such development should call upon knowledge and skills from a variety of disciplines, including computer science, information science, psychology, and ergonomics. The current study is intended to determine whether search engines shows a pattern of interdisciplinarity. 2 disciplines were selected as the focus for the study: computer science, and library/information science. A citation analysis was conducted to measure levels of interdisciplinary research and publishing in Internet search engine design and development. The results show a higher level of interdisciplinarity among library and information scientists than among computer scientists or among any of those categorized as 'other'. This is reflected both in the types of journals in which the authors publish, and in the references they cite to support their work. However, almost no authors published articles or cited references in fields such as cognitive science, ergonomics, or psychology. The results of this study are analyzed in terms of the writings of Patrick Wilson, Bruno Latour, Pierre Bordieu, Fritz Ringer, and Thomas Pinelli, focusing on cognitive authority within a profession, interaction between disciplines, and information-gathering habits of professionals. Suggestions for further research are given

0.020244677 = product of:
  0.06073403 = sum of:
    0.06073403 = weight(_text_:citation in 84) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06073403 = score(doc=84,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 84, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=84)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to determine some of the structural features of the classification schemes used in the directories (guides, channels) of search engines to organise information sources on the Internet. Ten search engines were examined at the main class level and the full hierarchies of a sample of three specific subjects were analysed in four of these engines, namely Excite, Infoseek, Lycos and Yahoo! It was found that there are major differences between the main classes of the search engines and those found in standard library schemes like Dewey, UDC and LCC. There are large gaps in subject coverage at main class level in the search engines and the general tendency is to use a topic-based approach in the formation of classes, rather than a discipline-based approach. The subdivision of the main classes is according to hierarchical tree structures, but a number of anomalies in this regard were identified. Another deviation from library classification theory is that various principles of division are employed to form classes at the same hierarchical level. In an analysis of citation orders many examples were found that conform to the principles followed in library classifications, but a number of inconsistencies in this regard were also noted

0.019408718 = product of:
  0.058226153 = sum of:
    0.058226153 = product of:
      0.11645231 = sum of:
        0.11645231 = weight(_text_:reports in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11645231 = score(doc=2131,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.51714313 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a study, conducted at Hawaii University, Department of Information and Computer Science, to understand the novide searchers' experience in learning to use a WWW search engine. Without prior searching instruction, undergraduate novives wrote structured self reports during their first session on a Web search engine. Users choose their own topics and followed written instructions that prompted them to describe thoughts and feelings during specified stages of the search; pre search formulation; search statement formulation; search strategy; and evaluation of the results. The sentences in the self reports were numbered and then coded according to their affective or cognitive function. The affective sentences reveal how users set goals and limit the scope of the cognitive operations. Search acts appear to be governed by an affective filter that organizes incoming information and provides criteria for ranking cognitive relevance to search goal. Content analysis identifies reasons users have for rating self confidence, stress level, satisfaction, usefulness, and success with future searches

0.019159475 = product of:
  0.057478424 = sum of:
    0.057478424 = product of:
      0.11495685 = sum of:
        0.11495685 = weight(_text_:22 in 3227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11495685 = score(doc=3227,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3227, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

7. 2.1996 22:38:41

Pages

22 S